Re: [freenet-chat] Questions from a potential client writer
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 24 Aug 2004, at 18:24, Nick Tarleton wrote: On Aug 23, 2004 8:04 PM, Ian Clarke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I hate to say it, but if you are that timid then I suggest you run a mile from Freenet and anything like it. Indeed, it seems I should. Running a Freenet node could easily get one sued for contributory copyright infringement. I don't think so, who would sue you? Ian. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (Darwin) iD8DBQFBLFqFQtgxRWSmsqwRAgwcAJ0eDy+8yXCLvShwDJq6BO32uVCE1wCeLK/o CNzIeKGijYqZuu77BWz5vRE= =QOCC -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general
Re: [freenet-chat] Re: [freenet-support] RE: anonymity(NOT)
No. Ian points out that the DMCA is trumped by the GPL. Read section 6. They have every right to modify the code. The only remaining argument is they can't make you run a program as easily as they can make you delete a file. IMHO we are mostly talking about threats here, and if they threaten you, tell you that unless you either run their hacked node cleaner, or you shut your node down, they will sue you, you are likely to do one or other of the demanded things. This is the same, isn't it, as deleting files which they specify - which they are unlikely to give you the keys for. Ok, I have two remarks on that one: First, let's say, for arguments sake, they can, indeed, change the code of the node...of which node would that be, then? It doesn't matter what they do on their node, after all. So, if you mean they can create a tool to modify the node of a user himself, then you still have the right, as seen in the betamax case, to refuse it, let alone that it would be far from trivial to do such a thing. After all, if they can force that, what is stopping them (or the state) from forcing you to use government approved freenet-nodes? They could just say you should use freenet nodes that aren't anonymous (or run tools that make it non-anonymous), so that you can delete all illegal stuff they can find. If I'm not mistaken, the court in the USA ruled in the grokster/aimster? case that one is not obliged to change the software just to accomodate persons that have complaints about illegal stuff. After all, even in the betamax case oponents claimed it could and should be made safe and in a manner that didn't allow illegal copying...but the supreme court did not follow them there neither. Secondly, let's say what you say is true about the GPL and the losing of protection without reservations; which is exactly what I said: it must be stated explicitely in the licence. But it does NOT mean you can't have Open Source (and yet still have DMCA protection). That's why I said it should be modular: a program working with a node, but not necessarely part of the code. The GPL DOES allow other programs to be 'hooked' on them, without them becoming automatically GPL'ed too, if I'm not mistaken. So the solution would be rather simple: make a (even only in name) 'third party' tool that works with the node, encrypts the content, but is not a direct derivative work of it, and make it open source, but not GPL. In that case, you keep the full protection of the DMCA, and as an aditional benefit, changing the code of the node might not be of much use (and could be seen as a circumvention of the encryption in any case). I'm well aware that you have other pressing matters, now. And it may be right that it's unlikely that they will be able to snif out en masse the chks...it will be more burdersome at any rate. Maybe one can even make the chunks small enough so that they could, theoretically, fall under 'fair use' (30 sec of a music file?), which would make it difficult to declare them illegal on themselves. But still, I do think it's better to be safe then sorrow, and done in the way I suggest, I really think it could be of considerable benefit in this particular regard. ___ chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general
Re: [freenet-chat] Re: [freenet-support] RE: anonymity(NOT)
In any case, it's unnecessary. Your own reasoning argues that if we simply had a fixed per node key that we used to obscure the filenames, and don't provide any explicit support for deleting specific files, it would be beyond the user's ability to delete targetted content. And the user could not be compelled to run a custom deletion tool. So lets get off the proprietary backend idea. On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 05:12:26PM +0100, Toad wrote: Such a tool would BY DEFINITION not be open source. And if it had to run in its own JVM there would be a major performance cost at least on older JVMs. On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 06:11:37PM +0200, Newsbyte wrote: No. Ian points out that the DMCA is trumped by the GPL. Read section 6. They have every right to modify the code. The only remaining argument is they can't make you run a program as easily as they can make you delete a file. IMHO we are mostly talking about threats here, and if they threaten you, tell you that unless you either run their hacked node cleaner, or you shut your node down, they will sue you, you are likely to do one or other of the demanded things. This is the same, isn't it, as deleting files which they specify - which they are unlikely to give you the keys for. Ok, I have two remarks on that one: First, let's say, for arguments sake, they can, indeed, change the code of the node...of which node would that be, then? It doesn't matter what they do on their node, after all. So, if you mean they can create a tool to modify the node of a user himself, then you still have the right, as seen in the betamax case, to refuse it, let alone that it would be far from trivial to do such a thing. After all, if they can force that, what is stopping them (or the state) from forcing you to use government approved freenet-nodes? They could just say you should use freenet nodes that aren't anonymous (or run tools that make it non-anonymous), so that you can delete all illegal stuff they can find. If I'm not mistaken, the court in the USA ruled in the grokster/aimster? case that one is not obliged to change the software just to accomodate persons that have complaints about illegal stuff. After all, even in the betamax case oponents claimed it could and should be made safe and in a manner that didn't allow illegal copying...but the supreme court did not follow them there neither. Secondly, let's say what you say is true about the GPL and the losing of protection without reservations; which is exactly what I said: it must be stated explicitely in the licence. But it does NOT mean you can't have Open Source (and yet still have DMCA protection). That's why I said it should be modular: a program working with a node, but not necessarely part of the code. The GPL DOES allow other programs to be 'hooked' on them, without them becoming automatically GPL'ed too, if I'm not mistaken. So the solution would be rather simple: make a (even only in name) 'third party' tool that works with the node, encrypts the content, but is not a direct derivative work of it, and make it open source, but not GPL. In that case, you keep the full protection of the DMCA, and as an aditional benefit, changing the code of the node might not be of much use (and could be seen as a circumvention of the encryption in any case). I'm well aware that you have other pressing matters, now. And it may be right that it's unlikely that they will be able to snif out en masse the chks...it will be more burdersome at any rate. Maybe one can even make the chunks small enough so that they could, theoretically, fall under 'fair use' (30 sec of a music file?), which would make it difficult to declare them illegal on themselves. But still, I do think it's better to be safe then sorrow, and done in the way I suggest, I really think it could be of considerable benefit in this particular regard. -- Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. ___ chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general -- Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general
[freenet-chat] Questions from a potential client writer
yes, well...does that mean you're going to write it, or not?Anyone who owns the copyright on something illegally distributed in Freenet. Although I just realized, they couldn't prove it without seeing my datastore, for which they would need a subpoena, which no judge would give them based only on the fact that I run Freenet. And anyway, since I run a node on dialup (and so am effectively transient), I probably wouldn't have any illegal material on my node unless I request it. -Original Message- From: Ian Clarke ian at locut.us Sent: Aug 25, 2004 5:23 AM To: 'chat at freenetproject.org, chat at freenetproject.org Subject: Re: [freenet-chat] Questions from a potential client writer On 24 Aug 2004, at 18:24, Nick Tarleton wrote: On Aug 23, 2004 8:04 PM, Ian Clarke ian at locut.us wrote: I hate to say it, but if you are that timid then I suggest you run a mile from Freenet and anything like it. Indeed, it seems I should. Running a Freenet node could easily get one sued for contributory copyright infringement. I don't think so, who would sue you? Ian. ___ chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general
Re: [freenet-chat] Re: [freenet-support] RE: anonymity(NOT)
Besides...I'm wonderingt how ambigue this still remains. The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research. Ok...let's hypothetically take CCS was open source, and the licence does not prohibit a restricive use of CCS. It's still the question if the DECCS program wouldn't be illegal, now, though. The question could be asked; is DECCS a derivate of CCS? Does it automatically fall under the GPL too, if some program breaks or circumvents a GPL-based program? And, it's not the Open Source licence that restricts anyone, perhaps, but the DMCA. Therefor, taken literal, a prog could be OS, not restricting the use, and still, breaking it would be forbidden under the DMCA (if the original author would complain about it, which is extremely unlikely in this case). Not restricting someone within/by the licence, and explicitely allowing something are two different things. Just a thought. - Original Message - From: Ian Clarke [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Newsbyte [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Toad [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 8:02 PM Subject: Re: [freenet-chat] Re: [freenet-support] RE: anonymity(NOT) -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 25 Aug 2004, at 17:59, Newsbyte wrote: Such a tool would BY DEFINITION not be open source. And if it had to run in its own JVM there would be a major performance cost at least on older JVMs. No, it wouldn't. In the sense of a GPL'ed Open source project, it would, but that's not the only licence possible for Open Source. It's perfectly possible to make the code public and open source, but make a reservation in your licence that it may not be used to (make a tool to) circumvent the encryption. Not according to section 6 of the Open Source definition: 6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research. See: http://opensource.org/docs/definition.php Ian. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (Darwin) iD8DBQFBLNQzQtgxRWSmsqwRAnPrAJ0bJq+470CQu57HBX/30a0wytPyvgCfTZJR SL9xCsZlR2lJ7ig9WVIYEE0= =Dhmw -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general
Re: [freenet-chat] Re: [freenet-support] RE: anonymity(NOT)
No, it would have all the other points of Open Source (and thus not 'abandon all the benefits '), exept for the use of circumvention. And even that, maybe, as explained in my previous post. I do not think there has ever been a case where the creators of an OSS have sued the creators of another prog that circumvented theirs, and what the courts decided on it. Logically spoken, one could have an OSS licence that, on itself 'does not restrict a field of endavour', and yet, the DMCA could forbid another prog to circumvent the protectionmeasure it (the GPLed product) created anyway . But maybe you can see an obvious fallacy in that reasoning? - Original Message - From: Ian Clarke [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Newsbyte [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Toad [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 8:25 PM Subject: Re: [freenet-chat] Re: [freenet-support] RE: anonymity(NOT) -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 25 Aug 2004, at 19:23, Newsbyte wrote: yes, well, this reminds me of the eternal flamewars on /. between the merrits of BSD and GPL. Not everyone sees it as black and white, however. Call it FLOSS, then, or 'public source' or whatever. Point is, as long as the code is public and openly available, there is little to fear that somehow the product would be a trap and insidiously have backdoors or sort. But it still would have DMCA protection. So you are going to abandon all the benefits of using an open source license to avail of the protection of a bad US law that probably wouldn't work anyway? Great plan! Ian. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (Darwin) iD8DBQFBLNmYQtgxRWSmsqwRAvmsAJwLa+5mMKeNBW9qANRhVNkRB6oWEgCcDS67 mUpk/WKXthcbK+s+CgRSjRI= =crvD -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general
Re: [freenet-chat] Questions from a potential client writer
On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 01:07:21PM -0400, Nick Tarleton wrote: Anyone who owns the copyright on something illegally distributed in Freenet. Although I just realized, they couldn't prove it without seeing my datastore, for which they would need a subpoena, which no judge would give them based only on the fact that I run Freenet. And anyway, since I run a node on dialup (and so am effectively transient), I probably wouldn't have any illegal material on my node unless I request it. That last point is wrong. ALL nodes are now used to spread the por^Wdata and balance load. Nodes which don't accept requests for the network will not be very useful once the rest of the network realizes this; they will be disconnected from. -Original Message- From: Ian Clarke [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Aug 25, 2004 5:23 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [freenet-chat] Questions from a potential client writer On 24 Aug 2004, at 18:24, Nick Tarleton wrote: On Aug 23, 2004 8:04 PM, Ian Clarke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I hate to say it, but if you are that timid then I suggest you run a mile from Freenet and anything like it. Indeed, it seems I should. Running a Freenet node could easily get one sued for contributory copyright infringement. I don't think so, who would sue you? Ian. ___ chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general -- Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general
